Well, the maximum potential charge has been set: they want 52 years in prison for the guy.

I say ultimately.....I dunno, 30 or 40 years, depending on whether Manning wants to/has info to give up on Wikileaks and Assange.

Exactly, Manning's already been charged. Not with "aiding the enemy," not even with espionage, but with violations of various Army and federal laws concerning the handling of classified data (specifically, UCMJ 92 as per Army Regulation 25-2 4-5(a)(3) and 4-6(k); and UCMJ 134 as per 18 USCode 793(e) and 18 USCode 1030(a)(1) and (2)--see the Army's charge sheet against Manning for details). WikiLeaks isn't an "enemy" since we aren't at war with them, and leaking classified information to the public, though technically illegal in its own right, is very different from relaying it (directly or indirectly) to the enemy--which is dangerous precisely because your own side doesn't know the enemy has the information, thus giving the enemy considerable strategic advantage.

Charging someone with "treason" for leaking documents to no one in particular would be fucking stupid. If he had made sure they ended up in Beijing ONLY, than sure, treason, but you can't go throwing "treason" and "terrorism" around.

Charging someone with "treason" for leaking documents to no one in particular would be fucking stupid.

Unfortunately, I think the discrepancy between the popular usage(s) of "treason," "treachery," "traitor," etc. and on the other hand their legal definitions (and history of interpretations in court) have created a lot of confusion. (For example, Ann Coulter's Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism...)

In continuation of my above post: as for Assange, over the last few days sources inside the DoJ have told the press that the government may be considering dusting off the Espionage Act of 1917 to use against him--that is, in the unlikely event they get their hands on him. (The Act, passed during the WWI-era Red Scare at a time when First Amendment press freedoms were considerably weaker than today, was billed as defense against pro-German traitors, but in practice was mostly used against left-wing critics of US participation in the War; it was highly controversial even at the time.) I hope they don't do this: the Act, which is far more vaguely worded than the standard current definition of espionage (10 USC 906A) regarding types of restricted information and the motives for soliciting and relaying it, could set a dangerous precedent for journalists publishing information passed along by 'Washington insiders' (often with Washington's blessing)--a routine staple of US journalism. It's unlikely this is anything more than a bluff--to succeed, the DoJ would not only have to show that sharing Manning's information proved Assange was either A) specifically seeking to injure the US or B) actively promoting insubordination within the military, but also, would most likely wind up having to release even more classified data to show that what he did release constitutes a verifiable threat. But if they do pursue this approach, given the possible implications for US journalism, it risks undermining the sincerity of their claims to be acting in 'the national interest'--much as Assange's release of these cables (save perhaps a couple), combined with the broader agenda suggested by his "manifesto," tends to undermine his image as a righteous whistleblower, bending or breaking the law insofar as it exposes true evil.

...A trove of diplomatic cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of publications, disclose a perception by American diplomats that Canadians “always carry a chip on their shoulder” in part because of a feeling that their country “is condemned to always play ‘Robin’ to the U.S. ‘Batman.’ ”

But at the same time, some Canadian officials privately tried to make it clear to their American counterparts that they did not share their society’s persistent undercurrent of anti-Americanism. In July 2008, Canada’s intelligence service director, James Judd, discussed a video showing a crying Omar Khadr, then a teenager and a Canadian detainee at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Judd “observed that the images would no doubt trigger ‘knee-jerk anti-Americanism’ and ‘paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty.’ ”

A cable that briefed President George W. Bush before a visit to Ottawa in late 2004 shed further light on the asymmetrical relationship with Canada—a country, the embassy wrote, that was engaged in “soul-searching” about its “decline from ‘middle power’ status to that of an ‘active observer’ of global affairs, a trend which some Canadians believe should be reversed.” It also noted that Canadian officials worried that they were being excluded from a club of English-speaking countries as a result of their refusal to take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States had created a channel for sharing intelligence related to Iraq operations with Britain and Australia, but Canada was not invited to join. The Canadian government “has expressed concern at multiple levels that their exclusion from a traditional ‘four-eyes’ construct is ‘punishment’ for Canada’s nonparticipation in Iraq and they fear that the Iraq-related channel may evolve into a more permanent ‘three-eyes’ only structure,” the cable said.

Four years later, after President Obama’s election, the embassy reported that Canadian officials had a different potential irritant: Mr. Obama was far more popular in Canada than they were. The embassy also said Mr. Obama’s decision to make Ottawa his first foreign trip as president would “do much to diminish—temporarily, at least—Canada’s habitual inferiority complex vis-à-vis the U.S. and its chronic but accurate complaint that the U.S. pays far less attention to Canada than Canada does to us.”

As one of those arseholes....and damm proud of it.....could you please explain to me why you don't think what he did was wrong.

sorry, i wasn't referring to you directly with my post, i was thinking more of certain prominent and/or dangerous political figures who have spoken out on this issue... but you can call yourself an arsehole if you really want to lol